Alaska; Hunting and Trapping in National Preserves

Published date09 June 2020
Citation85 FR 35181
Record Number2020-10877
SectionRules and Regulations
CourtInterior Department,National Park Service
Federal Register, Volume 85 Issue 111 (Tuesday, June 9, 2020)
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 111 (Tuesday, June 9, 2020)]
                [Rules and Regulations]
                [Pages 35181-35191]
                From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
                [FR Doc No: 2020-10877]
                =======================================================================
                -----------------------------------------------------------------------
                DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
                National Park Service
                36 CFR Part 13
                [NPS-AKRO-27791; PPAKAKROZ5, PPMPRLE1Y.L00000]
                RIN 1024-AE38
                Alaska; Hunting and Trapping in National Preserves
                AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.
                ACTION: Final rule.
                -----------------------------------------------------------------------
                SUMMARY: The National Park Service amends its regulations for sport
                hunting and trapping in national preserves in Alaska. This rule removes
                regulatory provisions issued by the National Park Service in 2015 that
                prohibited certain sport hunting practices otherwise permitted by the
                State of Alaska. These changes are consistent with Federal law
                providing for State management of hunting and trapping in Alaska
                preserves.
                DATES: This rule is effective July 9, 2020.
                [[Page 35182]]
                FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald Striker, Acting Regional
                Director, Alaska Regional Office, 240 West 5th Ave., Anchorage, AK
                99501. Phone (907) 644-3510. Email: [email protected].
                SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
                Background.
                 On October 23, 2015, the National Park Service (NPS) published a
                final rule (2015 Rule) to amend its regulations for hunting and
                trapping in national preserves in Alaska. 80 FR 64325. The 2015 Rule
                imposed prohibitions on certain types of harvest practices that are or
                could be authorized by the State of Alaska in national preserves. The
                specific practices addressed by the rule are: Taking any black bear,
                including cubs and sows with cubs, with artificial light at den sites;
                harvesting brown bears over bait; taking wolves and coyotes (including
                pups) during the denning season (between May 1 and August 9); taking
                swimming caribou; taking caribou from motorboats under power; taking
                black bears over bait; and, using dogs to hunt black bears. In
                addition, the 2015 rule prohibited any State authorization or
                management action from being allowed in Alaska preserves if it related
                to a predator reduction effort, meaning with the intent or potential to
                alter or manipulate natural populations or processes in order to
                increase harvest of ungulates by humans. The prohibition of these
                practices is inconsistent with State of Alaska hunting regulations
                found at 5 AAC Part 85.
                 Since early 2017, several actions have occurred which lead the NPS
                to reconsider portions of the 2015 rule that affect hunting and
                trapping opportunities on Alaska preserves and contradict State harvest
                regulations and wildlife management decisions. On March 2, 2017,
                Secretary Zinke signed Secretary's Order 3347, Conservation Stewardship
                and Outdoor Recreation, in order to ``enhance conservation stewardship,
                increase outdoor recreation, and improve the management of game species
                and their habitat.'' On September 15, 2017, Secretary Zinke signed
                Secretary's Order 3356, Hunting, Fishing, Recreational Shooting, and
                Wildlife Conservation Opportunities and Coordination with State,
                Tribes, and Territories, to ``enhance and expand upon Secretary's Order
                3347 and further implement the recommendations provided by the
                Secretary.'' On September 10, 2018, Secretary Zinke issued a memorandum
                to the heads of Department of the Interior bureaus recognizing States
                as the first-line authorities for fish and wildlife management and
                expressing a commitment to defer to States in this regard except as
                otherwise required by Federal law. The memorandum further directed
                agencies to review all regulations, policies, and guidance pertaining
                to fish and wildlife conservation and management, specifically
                provisions that are more restrictive than otherwise applicable State
                provisions.
                 Additionally, on April 3, 2017, a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
                rule for Alaska National Wildlife Refuges that was nearly identical in
                substance to the aspects of the 2015 Rule at issue in this rulemaking
                was repealed under the authority of the Congressional Review Act. See
                Public Law 115-20, 131 Stat. 86. House and Senate sponsors of the law
                strongly criticized those aspects of the NPS's 2015 Rule, e.g., 163
                Cong. Rec. H1260 (Feb. 16, 2017), S1864-69 (Mar. 21, 2017), but
                acknowledged that repeal through the Congressional Review Act was time-
                barred, id. at S1868 (remarks of Sen. Murkowski). With the passage of a
                joint resolution of disapproval, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
                cannot promulgate substantially similar regulations until specifically
                authorized by law. 5 U.S.C. 801(b)(2). While refuges operate under
                different frameworks than national preserves, this action by Congress
                was taken into account when interpreting consistency with the
                authorities and principles that were common to both rulemakings,
                including statutory requirements for wildlife management activities to
                be carried out under State law, as well as in considering how to
                complement regulations on surrounding lands and waters to the extent
                legally practicable.
                 In light of the aforementioned actions and resulting analysis, the
                NPS has revisited its approach regarding the authorizations that are
                the subject of this rule, focusing on the statutory scheme that
                requires the management of hunting and trapping in preserves under
                State law and reserves limited closure authority to NPS for enumerated
                purposes. This rule complements State regulations by more closely
                aligning harvest opportunities in national preserves with harvest
                opportunities on surrounding lands. See Secretary's Order 3347, Sec. 1
                and 2; and Secretary's Order 3356, Sec. 4.b.(4) and 4.d.(7); September
                10, 2018, Memorandum. As mandated by the Alaska National Interest Lands
                Conservation Act of 1980 (ANILCA), Public Law 96-487, 94 Stat. 2383,
                the NPS has consistently deferred to State laws, regulations, and
                management of hunting and trapping, other than for subsistence uses by
                rural Alaska residents under Federal regulations, in national preserves
                since their establishment in 1980. This rule acknowledges this
                longstanding deference to State law required by statute in removing the
                hunting and trapping prohibitions identified in this rule.
                 Both the 2015 rule and the individual preserve closures that
                preceded it were intended to prevent any ``conflict with laws and
                policies applicable to NPS areas that require preserving natural
                wildlife populations'' and the State authorizations at issue in this
                rule were not ``allowed on NPS lands'' for that reason. 80 FR 64326-27.
                The harvest prohibitions were based on a view of the NPS legal and
                policy framework that was at odds with statutory mandates, and not on
                concerns over wildlife population-level effects from allowing those
                uses. 80 FR 64334. The NPS has carefully reassessed whether the State
                hunting and trapping authorizations applicable within Alaska preserves
                are prohibited by other law or policy.
                 As a part of the National Park System, each preserve must be
                ``administered in accordance with the provisions of any statute made
                specifically applicable to that area.'' General Authorities Act of
                1970, Public Law 91-383, Sec. 2(b), 84 Stat. 826. ANILCA specifically
                provides that ``the taking of fish and wildlife for sport purposes and
                subsistence uses, and trapping shall be allowed in a national preserve
                under applicable State and Federal law and regulation[.]'' 16 U.S.C.
                3201. The Alaska Statehood Act of 1958 provided for the transfer of
                ``the administration and management of the fish and wildlife resources
                of Alaska'' from the Federal Government to the State of Alaska. Public
                Law 85-508, Sec. 6(e), 72 Stat. 341; Executive Order 10857, Dec. 29,
                1959; Letter to Sam Rayburn, Speaker of the House of Representatives,
                from Fred A. Seaton, Secretary of the Interior, Apr. 27, 1959 (``I
                hereby certify that the Alaska State Legislature has made adequate
                provision for the administration, management, and conservation of the
                fish and wildlife resources of Alaska in the broad national
                interest.''). This general Federal-State relationship was confirmed in
                43 CFR 24.1(a), which found that ``Federal authority exists for
                specified purposes while State authority regarding fish and resident
                wildlife remains the comprehensive backdrop applicable in the absence
                of specific, overriding Federal law.''
                 This specific Federal-State relationship was also confirmed in
                ANILCA, in which Congress established
                [[Page 35183]]
                and set aside national preserves in Alaska as NPS-administered units
                where sport hunting and trapping shall continue being managed by the
                State of Alaska, except that the ``Secretary may designate zones where
                and periods when no hunting, fishing, trapping, or entry may be
                permitted for reasons of public safety, administration, floral and
                faunal protection, or public use and enjoyment.'' Public Law 96-487,
                Secs. 203, 1313, 1314, 94 Stat. 2483-84; see also S. Rep. No. 96-413,
                at 307-08 (1979) (describing the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural
                Resources' intent to ``preserv[e] the status quo with regard to the
                responsibility and authority of the State to manage fish and wildlife,
                and . . . [a]t the same time . . . confir[m] the status quo with regard
                to the authority of the Secretary to manage the wildlife habitat on
                federal lands'' and noting ``the statutory requirement that the taking
                of fish and wildlife be allowed does not deprive the Secretary of his
                traditional authority to close public lands . . . to the taking of fish
                and wildlife under statutory criteria'').
                 As stated in a 1981 NPS rulemaking to begin implementing the just-
                passed ANILCA, the ``desire to continue sport fishing and hunting on
                all public lands in Alaska [was] a consistent and dominant theme of the
                public participation process during the development and final passage''
                of ANILCA. 46 FR 5642. In 1983, NPS promulgated 36 CFR 2.2(b)(1),
                providing that ``[h]unting shall be allowed in park areas where such
                activity is specifically mandated by Federal statutory law.'' The NPS
                Management Policies provided the following guidance: ``In the
                administration of mandated uses, park managers must allow the use;
                however, they do have the authority to and must manage and regulate the
                use to ensure, to the extent possible, that impacts on park resources
                from that use are acceptable.'' Management Policies 2006, Sec. 1.4.3.1.
                As described in more detail below, analysis including more recent
                harvest data and the best available science does not demonstrate
                potential for unacceptable impacts to park resources from removing the
                prohibitions at issue in this rule.
                 In a 1982 Master Memorandum of Understanding, both the Alaska
                Department of Fish and Game (ADFG) and NPS agreed that ANILCA ``and
                subsequent implementing regulations recognize that the resources and
                uses of Service lands in Alaska are substantially different than those
                of similar lands in other states and mandate continued subsistence uses
                in designated National Parks plus sport hunting and fishing,
                subsistence, and trapping uses in National Preserves under applicable
                State and Federal laws and regulations[.]'' As outlined above, this
                includes NPS authority to, after consultation with ADFG, prohibit sport
                hunting, fishing, or trapping ``for reasons of public safety,
                administration, floral and faunal protection, or public use and
                enjoyment.'' 16 U.S.C. 3201. Although the 2015 rule predominantly
                stemmed from finding state authorizations that ``liberalize predator
                harvest in areas that included national preserves'' were in ``conflict
                with laws and policies applicable to NPS areas that require preserving
                natural wildlife populations[,]'' it also referenced a need to
                ``protect fauna and provide for public use and enjoyment consistent
                with ANILCA'' as well as ``public safety concerns associated with
                baiting.'' 80 FR 64326, 64329. Whether or to what extent these findings
                and reasons continue to apply was examined throughout the course of
                this rulemaking, and is explored in greater detail in the Responses to
                Comments.
                 In addition to reconsidering the 2015 Rule in light of the
                requirements in ANILCA, new population data and information, and
                Congressional action, the NPS completed an Environmental Assessment,
                which was revised after the public comment period on this rule (as
                revised, the EA) to analyze the impacts these hunting methods would
                have on national preserves in Alaska. Similar to its findings in 2015,
                the EA concludes that under this rule, for the foreseeable future,
                healthy populations of wildlife will continue to exist in a manner
                consistent with the range of natural variability. This conclusion is
                based upon the low levels of additional take that are anticipated to
                occur under this rule. The NPS's findings regarding low levels of
                additional take are based upon harvest data from 2012-2016 that were
                not available to the NPS when it promulgated the 2015 Rule. This new
                data was provided by the State, and is more fully discussed in the EA
                (see EA, section 3.2.2). The conclusions in the EA are also based on
                the NPS's authority to take action whenever necessary to protect NPS
                resources and values from unacceptable impacts, including implementing
                specific, local closures to hunting and trapping pursuant to ANILCA. 16
                U.S.C. 3201.
                 As stated in the EA, allowing the State regulations to apply within
                national preserves is not anticipated to cause population-level
                effects, and any reductions in opportunities for take of predator
                species over the long-term, or increases in prey species, are expected
                to be minimal and localized. Under Article VIII, Section 4, of the
                Alaska Constitution, the State manages take of wildlife under a
                ``sustained yield principle'' which ``denotes conscious application
                insofar as practicable of principles of management intended to sustain
                the yield of the resource being managed'' and ``balance[s] maximum use
                of natural resources with their continued availability to future
                generations.'' See The Alaska Constitutional Convention, Proposed
                Constitution for the State of Alaska: A Report to the People of Alaska
                (1956). In accordance with this principle, which applies to both
                predator and prey populations, the State has assured the NPS that, in
                the event harvest were to increase beyond sustainable levels, the ADFG
                would close seasons by emergency order, if immediate action was
                necessary, and/or recommend more conservative seasons, bag limits, and/
                or methods to the Alaska Board of Game for future hunting seasons.
                 Application of the statutes and policies at issue is addressed in
                more detail in the Responses to Comments below, but generally, the NPS
                finds that the potential effect of the harvest practices does not
                threaten impairment of park resources under the Organic Act or the
                maintenance of healthy populations under ANILCA. Having reconsidered
                its prior position in light of specific mandates under ANILCA for
                Alaska preserves, revised guidance, new information, and the impacts
                permitting these hunting methods on national preserves in Alaska would
                have, the NPS has now determined that its 2015 characterization of the
                harvest methods as conflicting with NPS laws and policies was
                inconsistent with applicable law allowing hunting and trapping in
                national preserves. For these reasons, as explained in more detail
                below, the NPS promulgates this rule.
                Proposed Rule and Responses to Comments
                 On May 22, 2018, the NPS published the proposed rule in the Federal
                Register. 83 FR 23621. This rule was open for an initial 60-day public
                comment. The NPS extended the comment period twice, first on July 19,
                2018, 83 FR 34094, and again on September 6, 2018, 83 FR 45203, in
                response to requests from the public for more time to review the
                proposal. In total, the comment period was open for 168 days including
                both extensions. The comment period closed on November 6, 2018. The NPS
                invited comments through the mail, hand delivery, and through the
                Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. The NPS
                received approximately 211,780 pieces of correspondence on the proposed
                rule
                [[Page 35184]]
                with a total of 489,101 signatures. Of the 211,780 pieces of
                correspondence, approximately 176,000 were form letters and
                approximately 35,000 were unique comments.
                 The NPS also held several government to government consultation
                meetings with the State of Alaska and Alaska Native tribes and
                corporations. Consultation meetings were requested by the State, 12
                tribal entities, and two corporations; meetings were conducted in
                February, March, and October of 2018.
                 A summary of the pertinent issues raised in the comments received
                and NPS responses are provided below. After consultation, considering
                public comments, and revising the EA, the NPS did not make any changes
                in the final rule.
                 1. Comment: Several commenters stated that the proposed rule
                violates the mandate in the NPS Organic Act that the NPS regulate the
                use of the National Park System to conserve the scenery, natural and
                historic objects, and wildlife in such manner and by such means as will
                leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations. 54
                U.S.C. 100101.
                 NPS Response: Through the Organic Act, Congress granted the NPS
                broad discretion over how to regulate activities within National Park
                System units. In national preserves in Alaska, however, Congress
                narrowed the scope of the NPS's discretion with respect to the harvest
                of wildlife, directing that national preserves shall be managed ``in
                the same manner as a national park . . . except that the taking of fish
                and wildlife for sport purposes and subsistence uses, and trapping
                shall be allowed in a national preserve under applicable State and
                Federal law and regulation[.]'' 16 U.S.C. 3201. No specific provision
                in the Organic Act as limited by ANILCA prohibits the harvest methods
                that are the subject of this rule, and the NPS has determined this rule
                will not result in unacceptable impacts or an impairment of park
                resources. See Non-Impairment Determination appended to the Finding of
                No Significant Impact for the EA. In light of new policy direction,
                revised guidance, newly available harvest data showing low levels of
                take, State law requiring the management of wildlife under the
                sustained yield principle, and a review of the impacts permitting these
                hunting methods on national preserves in Alaska would have, the NPS has
                determined that its 2015 determination that the harvest practices
                violated the Organic Act failed to take into account applicable
                statutory requirements under ANILCA.
                 The EA concludes that due to the low levels of additional take
                anticipated under this rule, and considering the NPS's closure
                authority under ANILCA, healthy populations of wildlife will continue
                to exist in a manner consistent with the range of natural variability
                for the foreseeable future. Finally, for reasons discussed in the
                response to Comment 5, the NPS has concluded State management provided
                by ANILCA modifies and does not violate applicable NPS Management
                Policies that explain how the NPS implements the Organic Act and other
                laws that apply to the National Park System. Accordingly, the NPS has
                reconsidered its position in the 2015 Rule and concluded that allowing
                the hunting practices at issue in this rule would not violate the
                Organic Act.
                 2. Comment: Several commenters stated that the proposed rule
                violates Sec. 101(b) of ANILCA, which states that Congress intends that
                the statute provide for the maintenance of sound populations of
                wildlife species.
                 NPS Response: ANILCA states that Congress intended the statute to
                provide for the maintenance of sound populations of, and habitat for,
                wildlife species. 16 U.S.C. 3101(b). Specific to national preserves,
                each was established to allow for continued hunting and trapping under
                State management and, among other reasons, ``to protect habitat for and
                populations of fish and wildlife.'' 16 U.S.C. 410hh, 410hh-1. Three
                units include references to natural processes and/or biological
                processes in describing how the unit is to be managed. 16 U.S.C.
                410hh(1) (Aniakchak National Preserve: ``to study, interpret, and
                assure continuation of the natural process of biological succession''),
                410hh(8) (Noatak National Preserve: ``To maintain the environmental
                integrity of the Noatak River and adjacent uplands within the preserve
                in such a manner as to assure the continuation of geological and
                biological processes unimpaired by adverse human activity''), 410hh(10)
                (Yukon-Charley Rivers National Preserve: ``To maintain the
                environmental integrity of the entire Charley River basin, including
                streams, lakes and other natural features, in its undeveloped natural
                condition for public benefit and scientific study''). Title VIII of
                ANILCA, pertaining to subsistence uses, refers multiple times to
                managing for ``conservation of healthy populations'' of wildlife in
                national preserves. ANILCA also requires the NPS to allow the taking of
                wildlife for sport purposes in national preserves under applicable
                State and Federal law and regulation. 16 U.S.C. 3201, 3202. Therefore
                some level of sport hunting is appropriate and compatible with the
                various provisions of the law.
                 ANILCA does not address specific harvest methods; rather, it defers
                to State fish and game management to establish methods and means and
                provides limited closure authority to the NPS for the protection of
                resources. It provides that agencies should manage wildlife using
                recognized principles of fish and wildlife management. 16 U.S.C.
                3101(c), 3112(1). The State's legal framework for managing wildlife in
                Alaska is based on the principle of sustained yield, see Alaska
                Constitution Article VIII, Section 4, which is defined as ``achievement
                and maintenance in perpetuity of the ability to support a high level of
                human harvest of game, subject to preferences among beneficial uses, on
                an annual or periodic basis.'' AS 16.05.255. The State's constitutional
                mandate for sustained yield is consistent with NPS Management Policies,
                which state that the NPS ``manages [wildlife] harvest to allow for
                self-sustaining populations of harvested species.'' NPS Management
                Policies 2006, Sec. 4.4.3. The State asserts that it is legally
                obligated to implement this framework in a way that will maintain
                sustainable populations of wildlife. The State also maintains that the
                effects on wildlife populations from allowing these harvest methods in
                particular locations within national preserves will likely be
                negligible based on its analysis of similar harvest practices elsewhere
                in the state. This conclusion is consistent with the findings in the EA
                that population-level effects are not anticipated, and healthy
                populations of wildlife would continue to exist in a manner consistent
                with the range of natural variability. The State of Alaska assures the
                NPS that it is required to and will take immediate action if necessary
                to ensure sustainable population levels. This stated approach for
                managing wildlife is consistent with the direction in ANILCA to
                maintain sound populations of wildlife species.
                 The rule also does not diminish the limited closure authority of
                the NPS to designate areas and periods of time where sport hunting and
                trapping would not be allowed in national preserves for reasons of
                public safety, administration, floral and faunal protection, or public
                use and enjoyment. 16 U.S.C. 3201. ANILCA specifically granted this
                authority to the Secretary, and the NPS could implement specific, local
                closures if, when, and where necessary to prevent unacceptable impacts.
                For these reasons, this rule is consistent with the requirement in
                ANILCA to provide for the maintenance
                [[Page 35185]]
                of sound populations of wildlife species in national preserves.
                 3. Comment: Several commenters expressed confusion about the term
                ``sport hunting'' and stated that the proposed rule violates ANILCA
                because it authorizes methods of sport hunting that are not
                ``sporting.''
                 NPS Response: ANILCA states that ``the taking of fish and wildlife
                for sport purposes and subsistence uses, and trapping shall be allowed
                in a national preserve under applicable State and Federal law and
                regulation.'' 16 U.S.C. 3201. Although ANILCA defines ``subsistence
                uses'' under 16 U.S.C. 3113, it does not define ``sport purposes.''
                ANILCA defines who may engage in subsistence hunting under Title VIII,
                but does not restrict or otherwise define who may engage in sport
                hunting in national preserves. ANILCA is also silent in regard to
                harvest methods that can, and cannot, be used for sport purposes.
                Lacking any indication in the statute that Congress intended the phrase
                ``sport purposes'' to have a specialized meaning, the NPS finds that
                the term was used by Congress merely to distinguish subsistence hunting
                from other types of hunting. Thus, it is the NPS's position that
                hunting for ``sport purposes'' is the harvest of wildlife in national
                preserves in Alaska that is authorized under applicable State and
                Federal law and that does not qualify as subsistence hunting under
                Title VIII. This represents a change from the 2015 rule in how the NPS
                has implemented ANILCA's authorization for sport hunting.
                 In ANILCA Sec. 1314, regarding the ``Taking of Fish and Wildlife,''
                Congress expressly retained the status quo regarding the respective
                responsibilities and authorities of ``the State of Alaska for
                management of fish and wildlife on the public lands'' and ``the
                Secretary over the management of the public lands.'' 16 U.S.C. 3202.
                The legislative history explains that, ``for the National Park System
                components, this provision intends to make applicable in Alaskan Parks
                and Preserves the same Federal-State relations on fish and wildlife
                management that apply in lower 48 State national parks and preserves.''
                126 Cong. Rec. S15129, S15131 (Dec. 1, 1980).
                 With few exceptions, compendiums in National Park System units
                where Congress has mandated hunting, trapping, and fishing are
                consistent with State harvest regulations. In its comments on the
                proposed rule, the State noted that ``national park units with mandated
                hunting in other states also allow activities that the proposed NPS
                Alaska rule will allow.'' State of Alaska letter to NPS Regional
                Director re: RIN 1024-AE38, p. 13 (Nov. 2, 2018) (2018 State Comments).
                This included, at the time, 25 national park units with year-round
                coyote seasons, six of which allow the use of artificial light, seven
                units which allow hunting black bears with dogs, and four which allow
                the harvest of black bears over bait. Moreover, unlike national
                preserves in Alaska, some of the units which allow these practices have
                explicit statutory closure authority for wildlife management or faunal
                protection and management in their enabling legislation.
                 The position taken by the NPS in this final rule is supported by
                the State's comments on the proposed rule, which likewise determined
                that the methods that are the subject of this rule qualify as taking
                wildlife for ``sport purposes'' under ANILCA. It also furthers the
                direction in Secretary's Order 3356 and the September 10, 2018,
                Memorandum that hunting regulations for NPS lands and waters should
                complement the regulations on the surrounding lands and waters to the
                extent legally practicable.
                 4. Comment: Several commenters stated that allowing sport hunters
                to use the same harvest methods as subsistence users frustrates
                ANILCA's subsistence preference in Title VIII.
                 NPS Response: The NPS recognizes that this rule increases harvest
                opportunities for individuals hunting under State regulations in
                national preserves, which could increase competition with rural Alaska
                resident subsistence users in these locations. The NPS does not expect
                that the State's allowance of these harvest practices in national
                preserves will increase harvest levels to the degree that there are
                population-level impacts. This is supported by the NPS's analysis and
                conclusions in its ANILCA Section 810 Subsistence Evaluation and
                Finding appended to the EA. Qualified rural Alaska resident subsistence
                users will continue to have the opportunity to hunt in accordance with
                Federal subsistence regulations. Title VIII of ANILCA ensures rural
                Alaska residents have a priority for customary and traditional
                consumptive uses of fish and wildlife resources in national preserves
                in Alaska where conservation concerns require limitations on harvest.
                16 U.S.C. 3114. This rule does not change the methods and means for
                Federal subsistence harvest in national preserves and does not change
                the priority for subsistence uses in ANILCA. The Federal Subsistence
                Board has the authority to address competition among user groups in a
                variety of ways in order to provide a priority for rural Alaska
                resident subsistence users where there is a conservation concern.
                 Further, rural Alaska resident subsistence users may harvest
                wildlife in national preserves under Federal subsistence regulations or
                State regulations, depending on the advantage. Some of the State
                authorizations that would no longer be prohibited under this rule were
                initially requested by rural Alaska resident subsistence users to allow
                cultural and traditional harvest and resource management practices to
                continue in their use area, which can include proposals to the State of
                Alaska Board of Game and/or the Federal Subsistence Board to either
                allow for or prevent certain harvest practices from being allowed in
                Alaska preserves.
                 For example, in addressing proposals to allow take of cubs and
                females with cubs in dens as ``an opportunity for local people to take
                meat and to practice these customary and traditional methods,'' the
                Alaska Board of Game clarified the limited allowance was ``an attempt
                to move towards this goal of recognizing some of the customary and
                traditional practices that go on out in the Bush. A way people get food
                . . . this is in no way part of any predator management program.'' See
                Transcript of Nov. 10, 2008 Public Meeting of the Alaska Board of Game,
                quoted in 2018 State Comments, Att. C, at p. 70. This perspective is
                supported by the proposals to the Board, which reasoned that the fact
                ``these practices were conducted for generations without any
                substantial, long-lasting or irreversible effects to predator
                populations is testimony to their ecological integrity, as well as
                substantiating assertions by Alaska's indigenous people that their
                traditional harvest activities were/are essentially a part of the
                evolved ecosystem(s).'' Proposal 55 from Orutsararmiut Native Council
                to the Alaska Board of Game (Nov. 2008).
                 Subsistence users can also participate directly in the Federal
                Subsistence Management Program through statewide Subsistence Regional
                Advisory Councils, and Subsistence Resource Commissions advising on
                specific NPS-administered areas. The Wrangell-St. Elias National Park
                Subsistence Resource Commission has requested the 2015 rule be
                rescinded multiple times. At its October 2018 meeting, the Western
                Interior Subsistence Regional Advisory Council voted unanimously to
                support the adoption of State regulations in Alaska preserves, as
                proposed in this rule. Some concerns for subsistence users tend to
                reflect the complexity of regulating harvest in
                [[Page 35186]]
                Alaska, which council members agreed would be simplified by ``having
                Federal, State, and Park Service regulations match each other as much
                as possible.'' Transcript of Oct. 10, 2018 Public Meeting of the
                Western Interior Federal Subsistence Regional Advisory Council at p.
                86:10-12.
                 The Eastern Interior Subsistence Regional Advisory Council
                maintained a similar position in its comments on the proposed rule. The
                Council found the ``regulations proposed for removal interfere with
                long-standing cultural practices of rural residents on and off park
                lands. Wildlife does not recognize administrative boundaries, so the
                application of different rules on NPS and State lands in areas of mixed
                land administration creates confusion and intrusion into traditional
                practices, which interferes with wildlife conservation. In addition,
                these rules are inconsistent with the rules adopted by the Federal
                Subsistence Board, adding unnecessary confusion for rural residents.''
                Eastern Interior Subsistence Regional Advisory Council letter to NPS
                Regional Director, p. 2 (Nov. 5, 2018). The Council also noted that the
                2015 rule had been ``adopted despite the Council's strong objection to
                it based on potential negative effects on Federally qualified
                subsistence users[,]'' including their ``abilities to continue
                traditional practices with their families, while only allowing `sport'
                uses on National Preserves.'' Id. The Council continued to observe that
                ``[m]any rural subsistence users hunt and trap under general State
                regulations and greatly benefit from those more liberal methods,
                seasons, and bag limits.'' Eastern Interior Subsistence Regional
                Advisory Council letter to NPS Regional Director, p. 2 (Nov. 20, 2014).
                 5. Comment: Several commenters stated that the proposed rule
                violates Sec. 4.4.3 of NPS Management Policies with regard to
                prohibiting predator control. Several commenters stated that the
                proposed rule violates Secs. 4.1, 4.4.1, 4.4.1.2, 4.4.2 of NPS
                Management Policies with regard to protecting natural ecosystems and
                processes.
                 NPS Response: NPS Management Policies explain how the NPS generally
                will implement the laws that apply to the National Park System,
                including the NPS Organic Act, and explain how the NPS will manage
                activities on lands and waters within the System. NPS Management
                Policies state that the legislative requirements of ANILCA, although
                not cited directly in the various policies, must be complied with in
                the interpretation and application of the management policies. NPS
                Management Policies 2006, Hierarchy of Authorities. NPS Management
                Policies can only be applied in a manner consistent with ANILCA's
                mandates, including the special status of the national preserves as
                park units where hunting and trapping are allowed under State and
                Federal law. As explained in the response to Comment 2, ANILCA provides
                for the management of sound populations, with the purposes for three
                units calling for maintenance of natural and/or biological processes,
                while at the same time mandating sport hunting.
                 While NPS Management Policies state that ``activities to reduce the
                numbers of native species for the purpose of increasing numbers of
                harvested species (i.e. predator control)'' are not allowed on lands
                managed by the NPS, NPS Management Policies 2006, Sec. 4.4.3, ANILCA
                provides that the ``taking of fish and wildlife for sport purposes and
                subsistence uses, and trapping shall be allowed in a national preserve
                under applicable State and Federal law and regulation[,]'' 16 U.S.C.
                3201. It is the NPS' position that hunting for ``sport purposes'' is
                the harvest of wildlife in national preserves in Alaska that is
                authorized under applicable State and Federal law and that does not
                qualify as subsistence hunting under Title VIII, as outlined in the
                response to Comment 3. The NPS is also not allowing these hunting
                practices in national preserves in Alaska for the purpose of reducing
                predators, because the State has not provided for predator control
                activities in Alaska preserves. The State of Alaska's purpose in
                authorizing these practices is to expand hunting opportunities, rather
                than as part of a formal predator control or other program designed to
                reduce a population below sustainable levels. See 2018 State Comments,
                at p. 22.
                 In the 2015 Rule, the NPS concluded that the harvest methods
                prohibited by that rule were inconsistent with NPS Management Policies
                in Sec. 4.4.3 because the NPS believed that the State's allowance of
                those methods was motivated by the goal of increasing the number of
                prey species. The NPS recognizes that requests submitted to the State
                of Alaska for liberalized harvest methods in game management units
                (GMUs) that include land within national preserves may have been
                motivated by a desire to reduce predators in order to increase prey.
                The NPS also recognizes that individual board members may have voted
                based in part on a desire to reduce predators. Nonetheless, these are
                management considerations reserved to the State under ANILCA. The State
                has shown that ``general hunting and trapping regulations are developed
                under sustained yield concepts for both predator and prey populations
                where there is a harvestable surplus,'' and are distinct from actions
                which ``aim to reduce predator populations and improve prey
                populations.'' Id. The State has also explained that the harvest
                methods that are the subject of this rule ``simply reflect the
                existence of an abundant population of wildlife and a small segment of
                the public's desire to hunt them that fit within the sustained yield
                concept of scientific management Alaska follows.'' Id. at p. 18.
                 The NPS acknowledges that the State made similar assertions about
                the purpose of the harvest methods subject to this rule in its comments
                on the 2015 Rule and related environmental assessment (2014 EA), and
                that the NPS reached a different conclusion then. In reaching this
                conclusion, the NPS has carefully considered its statutory requirements
                and authorities, including that its policies must be applied consistent
                with ANILCA, all of the State's representations and explanations
                regarding its purposes for the harvest practices, as well as the fact
                that the NPS's own environmental analysis finds that allowing the
                harvest methods identified in this rule will still support healthy
                populations of wildlife within preserves. These findings are supported
                by 2012-2016 harvest data provided by the State to the NPS. The NPS is
                also now viewing the State's communications from the perspective
                inspired by Congressional disapproval and required by revised guidance
                and policy direction announced by the Secretary since the promulgation
                of the 2015 Rule. The NPS has determined that the State's
                representations and explanations regarding the authorizations at issue,
                as well as the legal and administrative requirements that support them,
                are more relevant to NPS action than the motivations of individual
                requesters or state game board members, especially in light of the
                recent reiteration of the State's position.
                 Finally, the EA concludes that the hunting practices at issue will
                not have a significant effect on predator and prey populations and
                therefore will not have the effect of predator reduction or predator
                control, regardless of any perception of the purpose of the hunting
                practices. Based upon the NPS's purpose in complying with its statutory
                responsibilities to allow for harvest opportunities under State and
                Federal law, the State's comments on the 2015 Rule, and the State's
                November 2018 letter asserting that such activities serve to provide
                hunter opportunity rather than to reduce predators or increase
                [[Page 35187]]
                prey, and on the lack of any significant effect of predator reduction
                in practice, the NPS concludes these hunting activities do not violate
                Sec. 4.4.3 of the NPS Management Policies in light of the specific
                statutory requirements related to national preserves.
                 Several provisions of NPS Management Policies require the NPS to
                protect natural ecosystems and processes, including the natural
                abundances, diversities, distributions, densities, age-class
                distributions, populations, habitats, genetics, and behaviors of
                wildlife. NPS Management Policies 2006, Secs. 4.1, 4.4.1, 4.4.1.2,
                4.4.2. These policies can be read to be at odds with hunting and
                trapping, and so it is understandable that Congress established
                national preserves, new and distinct units of the National Park System
                where the differentiating characteristic is that harvest is allowed
                under State and Federal law. As mentioned above, while the NPS
                Management Policies call for maintaining natural populations, they must
                be read in the context of ANILCA's specific legal mandate to allow
                sport hunting in national preserves, which by its very nature is a
                human intrusion upon natural cycles, and ANILCA's call for preserves to
                be managed for sound populations of wildlife using limited closure
                authority. By specifically mandating that hunting be allowed, Congress
                intended to authorize management for something less than populations
                untouched by human influence, and this is how the NPS and the State
                have managed national preserves since ANILCA was enacted.
                 Section 1.4.3.1 of NPS Management Policies provides that, ``[i]n
                the administration of mandated uses, park managers must allow the use;
                however, they do have the authority to and must manage and regulate the
                use to ensure, to the extent possible, that impacts on park resources
                from that use are acceptable.'' ANILCA limits this authority to
                closures for specified purposes, including the protection of wildlife.
                The State maintains that any effects to the natural abundances,
                diversities, distributions, densities, age-class distributions,
                populations, habitats, genetics, and behaviors of wildlife from
                implementing its regulations are likely negligible. ADFG letter to NPS
                Regional Director re: RIN 1024-AE21 (Nov. 26, 2014) (2014 State
                Comments). While data are limited, the State reports that increased
                harvest opportunities provided by its regulations have not resulted in
                meaningful effects on predator or prey abundance. Based upon the
                analysis in the EA, the NPS believes additional take that could occur
                from the harvest methods identified in this rule, as currently allowed
                by the State, would not likely alter natural predator-prey dynamics at
                the population level or have a significant foreseeable adverse impact
                to wildlife populations (including natural variability in terms of the
                range of natural variability), or otherwise impair park resources. As
                noted above, the NPS retains the authority to designate areas and
                periods of time where sport hunting and trapping would not be allowed
                in national preserves for purposes of protecting wildlife. 16 U.S.C.
                3201. For these reasons, the NPS does not believe these harvest
                practices violate NPS Management Policies Secs. 4.1, 4.4.1, 4.4.1.2,
                4.4.2.
                 6. Comment: Several commenters stated that the proposed rule does
                not advance the purposes of Secretary's Orders 3347 and 3356 because it
                would only affect harvest opportunities on 6% of lands in the State of
                Alaska and would not have any effect on harvest under Federal
                subsistence regulations.
                 NPS Response: Section 1 of Secretary's Order 3347 identifies the
                purpose of the Order by stating that the Department of the Interior
                shall increase ``outdoor recreation opportunities, including hunting
                and fishing, for all Americans.'' Section 2 says that the Department
                will ``expand recreational and conservation opportunities for all
                Americans,'' including through the ``expansion and enhancement of
                hunting opportunities.'' Section 4.b.(4) of Secretary's Order 3356
                directs the NPS to identify whether hunting opportunities on NPS lands
                could be expanded.
                 Allowing hunting and trapping opportunities under State law on
                national preserves is consistent with the direction in Secretary's
                Orders 3347 and 3356. The Orders do not establish a minimum acreage,
                percentage of the hunting population, or access threshold that would
                qualify as an expansion of hunting opportunities as that policy goal is
                articulated in the Orders. This rule would remove Federal restrictions
                on harvest methods that currently apply to hunters on more than
                22,000,000 acres of NPS-administered land.
                 In addition to allowing for State hunting and trapping
                opportunities, this rule would comply with the direction in Secretary's
                Order 3356 to more closely align NPS management of wildlife with that
                of the State. Section 4.d. of Secretary's Order 3356 requires the NPS
                to work cooperatively with State wildlife agencies to ensure that
                hunting regulations for NPS lands and waters complement the regulations
                on the surrounding lands and waters to the extent legally practicable.
                As stated above, this rule more closely aligns with Federal law by
                aligning hunting opportunities in national preserves with hunting
                opportunities allowed by the State of Alaska on surrounding lands,
                ensuring State law applies inside the preserves.
                 7. Comment: Several commenters stated that bear baiting creates a
                public safety hazard. Commenters noted that bait stations are often
                placed near roads and trails without proper signage which further
                increases the public safety risk and the risk of bears being taken in
                defense of life or property.
                 NPS Response: The NPS acknowledges that negative human-bear
                interactions occur throughout the State. It is difficult to determine,
                however, which if any such interactions are attributable to bears
                obtaining food rewards specifically from bear baiting. That said, the
                NPS recognizes that some bears that are attracted to bait stations, but
                not harvested, could pose a threat to public safety. Further, such
                bears may be more prone to being taken in defense of life or property.
                The NPS also recognizes that bears occur throughout Alaska and that
                people engaging in outdoor activities on NPS lands may encounter them.
                Adverse human-bear interactions are rare, but the consequences of such
                interactions can be severe (serious injury or death).
                 Bear baiting in national preserves would occur in the midst of
                nearly 20 million acres of very sparsely populated and remote areas,
                with few visitor facilities or services on site, if any. Human-bear
                interactions from bear baiting are likely to be rare--except for
                hunters seeking bears--both due to the lack of observed bear
                conditioning to associate bait stations with humans and the relatively
                few people in such remote areas to interact with bears. The State
                registers thousands of black bear bait stations yearly, and has done so
                for many years, but to date, it and other states which allow this
                practice have not detected problems that can be directly attributed to
                bear baiting. See 2014 State Comments, Att., at p. 14. The State also
                noted that ``[e]stablishing, maintaining and cleaning up bear bait
                stations involves significant labor and materials and is typically
                conducted off of road or trail systems. All but one preserve in Alaska
                is many miles from the road system and hunters are not likely to use
                those areas for this use due to the extra cost and effort involved when
                easier to access locations are available.'' 2018 State Comments, Att.
                B, at p. 54.
                [[Page 35188]]
                 Alaska Department of Fish and Game regulations for bear bait
                stations will serve to mitigate risk to public safety, as they include
                requirements for site registration, signage, site cleanup and removal,
                and minimum distances from maintained roads, trails, houses, businesses
                and developed recreational facilities. The NPS will work with the State
                to take actions to sustain and improve compliance with these risk-
                mitigation regulations and will attempt to address any site-specific
                issues related to bear baiting through the Alaska Board of Game, to the
                maximum extent allowed by Federal law. ANILCA continues to provide the
                ability to enact specific closures if necessary in the future.
                 The NPS recognizes that, even with safety measures in place, the
                practice of bear baiting could increase the frequency of adverse human-
                bear interactions for visitors to national preserves. The EA observes
                that, ``[b]y design, baiting of bears alters their behavior to increase
                their predictability and facilitate harvest.'' EA, Sec. 3.2.2. Herrero
                (2002:41-44) referred to bears that become used to people through
                regular contact as ``habituated'' bears, and noted that if such bears
                also obtain food rewards, such as garbage that they associate with
                people, they can become ``food conditioned.'' Habituated and food
                conditioned bears are more likely to become a nuisance and be taken in
                defense of life or property, and they pose an elevated public safety
                risk. Herrero (1970, 1976, 2002).
                 However, bear baiting differs in that bears do not necessarily
                associate baits with humans, and thus may not become food conditioned
                or habituated, as defined by Herrero (2002). Paquet (1991:2), cited in
                Hristienko and McDonald (2007) reported that bears exposed to bait in
                Manitoba did not become nuisance animals. Similarly, in its decades of
                experience, the State has found ``no evidence to support the claim that
                use of bait leads to food conditioned bears. Instead all information
                indicates just the opposite, which is that in areas where bear baiting
                is allowed there are fewer Defense of Life and Property (DLP) and
                agency kills.'' 2018 State Comments, Att. B, at pp. 52-53; see also
                2014 State Comments, Att., at p. 10 (arguing against the claim that
                prohibiting bear baiting would reduce nuisance bears as ``contrary to
                the observations of subsistence users, state wildlife biologists, and
                state law enforcement officers that baiting can help to reduce nuisance
                bear problems'').
                 ANILCA and the Organic Act provide for a variety of public uses in
                national preserves, and some of the uses inherently detract from
                others, for example flightseeing and backcountry camping in designated
                wilderness. In these and many other cases, the NPS must exercise its
                discretion in managing competing authorized or mandated uses. Here,
                considering that habituation and safety issues related to bear baiting
                are expected to be rare, and the authority the NPS has to enact local
                closures if and where necessary, the NPS is removing Federal
                prohibitions on the harvest methods that are the subject of this rule.
                This will allow the State to determine whether bear baiting is allowed
                within national preserves consistent with ANILCA, and will also ensure
                State mitigations for human-bear interactions can be employed.
                 8. Comment: Several commenters stated that bear baiting is
                inconsistent with the NPS's efforts to educate visitors about the risks
                of feeding wildlife and the importance of securing food to prevent
                adverse human-bear interactions.
                 NPS Response: Consistent with NPS regulations that prohibit feeding
                wildlife, the NPS advises park visitors not to feed wildlife and to
                keep food and other attractants secure in order to avoid attracting
                bears. ANILCA allows sport hunting under State law, however, and State
                regulations allow individuals to take bears over bait in specific
                areas, some of which may be located within national preserves. If there
                is a tension between allowing bear baiting and prohibiting visitors
                from feeding bears, this is to be resolved in management
                considerations. The NPS's approach on this issue is informed by the
                Congressional mandate to allow sport hunting under State law. As stated
                above, the State has adopted regulations for bait stations to help
                prevent adverse human-bear interactions. Additionally, as noted in the
                EA, bear baiting differs from the act of feeding bears, in that bears
                do not necessarily associate baits with humans, Hristienko and McDonald
                (2007), and thus may not become food conditioned or habituated, Herrero
                (2002). Visitor feeding of bears, both in Alaska and elsewhere (such as
                Yellowstone National Park), has resulted in bears associating humans
                with food.
                 9. Comment: Several commenters stated that bear baiting violates
                the Wilderness Act by degrading the untrammeled and undeveloped
                qualities of wilderness character.
                 NPS Response: State management practices, including bear baiting,
                are allowed by ANILCA in the national preserves, including within
                designated wilderness. As discussed in the EA, implementation of this
                rule would have a minimal adverse impact on the untrammeled quality of
                wilderness in small and scattered locations by intentionally altering
                wildlife behavior. In addition, the presence of bear bait stations and
                associated debris would temporarily, in such small and scattered
                locations, degrade the undeveloped quality of wilderness. Overall, due
                to the low level of additional take expected under the proposed action,
                and the large areas of designated wilderness in national parks and
                preserves in Alaska, wilderness character would continue to exist in a
                manner similar to current conditions in accordance with statutory
                requirements in ANILCA and the Wilderness Act.
                 Furthermore, ANILCA provides that designated wilderness is to be
                administered in accordance with the Wilderness Act except as otherwise
                expressly provided for by ANILCA. ANILCA includes several special
                provisions for wilderness areas in Alaska. These special provisions are
                referred to as ``non-conforming'' uses. Relevant to sport hunting,
                ANILCA requires the NPS to permit, subject to reasonable regulation to
                ensure compatibility, the establishment and use of temporary facilities
                and equipment directly and necessarily related to the taking of
                wildlife. 16 U.S.C. 3204(a). The establishment and use of bait stations
                in wilderness areas for the purpose of taking bears under State laws
                and regulations qualifies as an allowed, non-conforming use under this
                provision. The State requirements pertaining to clean-up and prompt
                removal of bait stations are consistent with protection of the areas
                while allowing for the Congressionally-mandated activity of sport
                hunting under applicable State and Federal law and regulation within
                national preserves.
                 For these reasons, although bear baiting has minimal adverse
                impacts to wilderness character in small and scattered locations, this
                rule would not impair wilderness character and would ensure compliance
                with both ANILCA and the Wilderness Act.
                 10. Comment: Some commenters stated available data are inadequate
                to evaluate the impact of liberalized hunting regulations on predators
                or prey. Some stated the proposed rule disregards scientific
                recommendations and conclusions made to and by the NPS through the
                public consultation process for the 2015 rule.
                 NPS Response: The NPS recognizes that data necessary to evaluate
                potential impacts of hunting on predators and their prey are difficult
                and costly to
                [[Page 35189]]
                obtain. Neither the NPS nor the State of Alaska consistently collect
                population-level abundance or demographic data for black bears, brown
                bears, or wolves in GMUs that overlap with national preserves. Rather,
                the NPS typically evaluates historical harvest data, often in the
                context of evaluating proposals submitted to the Alaska Board of Game,
                to determine if significant impacts on predator populations are likely.
                Similarly, in preparing the EA, the NPS analyzed harvest data provided
                by the State for black bears, brown bears, and wolves in GMUs
                overlapping national preserves. National preserves composed less than
                11% of the land area of those GMUs, so hunting regulations in each GMU
                were largely unconstrained by the 2015 Rule or prior restrictions
                imposed by the NPS. Based in part on harvest data from 2012-2016 and
                consideration of potential additional harvest under current State
                regulations allowed by this rule, the NPS determined that, in general,
                meaningful population-level impacts on black bears, brown bears, or
                wolves are unlikely. The NPS will continue to work with the State to
                obtain and analyze harvest and population data, with particular
                attention to the most easily accessible areas. The NPS retains the
                authority under ANILCA to designate areas and periods of time where
                sport hunting and trapping would not be allowed in national preserves
                for purposes of protecting wildlife.
                 In making its determinations, the NPS did not disregard scientific
                recommendations or conclusions arising from the public consultation
                process for the 2015 Rule. The 2015 Rule was based upon ``the NPS legal
                and policy framework[.]'' 80 FR 64328 (Frequently Asked Questions
                section). The NPS evaluated predator harvest and its influence on
                predator-prey systems in the context of population-level (i.e., GMU-
                scale) impacts rather than localized impacts. See EA, Sec. 3.2.2.
                Further, the overall conclusion in the Finding of No Significant Impact
                (FONSI) for the EA supporting the current rule--a determination that
                the proposed action will not result in significant adverse impacts--is
                consistent with NPS statements made in the Finding of No Significant
                Impact for the 2015 Rule, which noted how neither of its alternatives
                was ``likely to have a significant effect on park resources.''
                 The NPS reached its conclusions in the EA and FONSI that support
                the current rule by evaluating the management implications of available
                scientific literature and other data, some of which is new information
                not used or available during the public consultation process for the
                2015 rule. With regard to effects on wildlife, the 2014 EA stated,
                ``[l]ocalized effects on individual animals, family groups, and packs
                may be substantial (e.g., direct mortality, increased mortality risk
                due to loss of family or group members, and food conditioning).'' The
                EA supporting the current rule reaches a similar conclusion relative to
                mortality risks; however, the effects were not found to be
                ``substantial.'' As documented in the EA, the NPS considered harvest
                data from 2012-2016 and determined that there is likely to be only a
                low level of additional take of predators from preserves under the
                proposed action.
                 With regard to impacts related to bear baiting, data not included
                in the 2015 Rule and EA, cited in Hristienko and McDonald (2007),
                suggest that, when managed correctly, there is no evidence to suggest
                that black bears exposed to baits are destined to become problem bears.
                See EA, Sec. 3.2.2. The EA supporting the current rule clarifies that
                food conditioned bears are those that become habituated to humans
                first, then learn to associate food with humans and thereby become a
                potential nuisance and public safety risk. Herrero (2002). Therefore,
                baiting that is conducted in a manner consistent with required
                mitigations (e.g., signage, setback, cleanup) is unlikely to result in
                food conditioning.
                 The NPS acknowledges that several sources included in the 2014 EA
                are not used in the EA supporting the current rule. During its review
                of Boertje et al. (2012) for the current rule, the NPS determined the
                study does not apply as used in the 2014 EA because that study included
                impacts of targeted wolf control actions on the nutritional status and
                distribution of caribou. Such actions contrast with the practices that
                would be allowed under this rule, which are intended to expand hunting
                opportunities in preserves rather than to reduce predator populations.
                 Commenters also pointed out that the following sources included in
                the 2014 EA are not included in the current EA: Barber-Meyer et al.
                (2008), Beschta and Ripple (2010), Evans et al. (2006), Ripple et al.
                (2014), and Ruth et al. (2004). These sources were cited once in the
                2014 EA to support the conclusion that, when striving to maintain
                natural processes, some consideration of the effects of designed
                management perturbations on an entire suite of species, their
                interactions, trophic cascades, and system stability is necessary. The
                NPS acknowledges and has considered these concepts, but based on the
                entirety of the information reviewed during the EA process, the NPS has
                determined that population-level effects that would alter the natural
                processes listed are unlikely. The NPS will continue to work with the
                State to monitor harvest and, where practicable, status of predator and
                prey populations, and retains the authority under ANILCA to designate
                areas and periods of time where sport hunting and trapping would not be
                allowed.
                Final Rule
                 The NPS is removing paragraphs (f) and (g) of 36 CFR 13.42.
                Paragraph (f) states that State of Alaska management actions or laws or
                regulations that authorize taking of wildlife are not adopted in park
                areas if they are related to predator reduction efforts, which are
                defined as efforts with the intent or potential to alter or manipulate
                natural predator-prey dynamics and associated natural ecological
                processes, in order to increase harvest of ungulates by humans.
                Removing this provision will expand harvest opportunities, complement
                regulations on lands and waters within and surrounding national
                preserves, and defer to the State in regard to fish and wildlife
                management, which is consistent with the NPS Organic Act, ANILCA, and
                43 CFR part 24. This provision has not been utilized by the NPS since
                it was promulgated in 2015 and the NPS believes that removing it will
                help provide regulatory certainty to park users about what hunting
                practices are or are not allowed in national preserves.
                 Paragraph (g) sets forth a table of prohibited methods of taking
                wildlife for sport purposes in national preserves in Alaska. Most of
                these prohibited methods are also prohibited by the State of Alaska.
                Some of them, however, conflict with authorizations by the State of
                Alaska as explained above.
                 The NPS believes that removing paragraphs (f) and (g) is consistent
                with Congressional direction for the management of Alaska preserves and
                will better implement the policy direction announced in Secretary's
                Orders 3347 and 3356 by increasing hunting opportunities in national
                preserves and promoting consistency between Federal regulations and
                State wildlife harvest regulations. In addition, this rule removes the
                definitions of ``Big game'', ``Cub bear'', ``Fur animal'', and
                ``Furbearer'' from Sec. 13.1 because those terms are only used in
                paragraphs (f) and (g).
                [[Page 35190]]
                Compliance With Other Laws, Executive Orders and Department Policy
                Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)
                 Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and
                Regulatory Affairs in the Office of Management and Budget will review
                all significant rules. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
                has determined that this rule is significant because it will raise
                novel legal or policy issues.
                 Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of Executive Order
                12866 while calling for improvements in the Nation's regulatory system
                to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best,
                most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory
                ends. The Executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory
                approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of
                choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible,
                and consistent with regulatory objectives. Executive Order 13563
                emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available
                science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public
                participation and an open exchange of ideas. The NPS has developed this
                rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.
                Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs (Executive Order
                13771)
                 Enabling regulations are considered deregulatory under guidance
                implementing E.O. 13771 (M-17-21). This rule would remove prohibitions
                on certain methods of taking wildlife for sport purposes in national
                preserves in Alaska, thereby enabling those activities where they are
                allowed by State law.
                Regulatory Flexibility Act
                 This rule will not have a significant economic effect on a
                substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
                Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). This certification is based on the cost-
                benefit and regulatory flexibility analyses found in the report
                entitled ``Cost-Benefit and Regulatory Flexibility Analyses: Proposed
                Revisions to Sport Hunting and Trapping Regulations in National
                Preserves in Alaska'' which can be viewed online at http://parkplanning.nps.gov/akro.
                Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
                 This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small
                Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule:
                 (a) Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million
                or more.
                 (b) Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for
                consumers, individual industries, Federal, state, or local government
                agencies, or geographic regions.
                 (c) Does not have significant adverse effects on competition,
                employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of
                U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.
                Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)
                 This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on state, local, or
                tribal governments or the private sector of more than $100 million per
                year. This rule does not have a significant or unique effect on state,
                local or tribal governments or the private sector. It addresses public
                use of national park lands, and imposes no requirements on other
                agencies or governments. A statement containing the information
                required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act is not required.
                Takings (Executive Order 12630)
                 This rule does not effect a taking of private property or otherwise
                have takings implications under Executive Order 12630. A takings
                implication assessment is not required.
                Federalism (Executive Order 13132)
                 Under the criteria in section 1 of Executive Order 13132, this rule
                does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the
                preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. This rule only
                affects use of federally administered lands and waters, and seeks to
                align Federal and state regulations on lands and waters within and
                surrounding the preserves. A federalism summary impact statement is not
                required.
                Civil Justice Reform (Executive Order 12988)
                 This rule complies with the requirements of Executive Order 12988.
                This rule:
                 (a) Meets the criteria of section 3(a) requiring that all
                regulations be reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and be
                written to minimize litigation; and
                 (b) Meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) requiring that all
                regulations be written in clear language and contain clear legal
                standards.
                Consultation With Indian Tribes (Executive Order 13175 and Department
                Policy)
                 The Department of the Interior strives to strengthen its
                government-to government relationship with Indian Tribes through a
                commitment to consultation with Indian Tribes and recognition of their
                right to self-governance and tribal sovereignty. We have evaluated this
                rule under the criteria in Executive Order 13175 and under the
                Department's tribal consultation and Alaska Native Claims Settlement
                Act (ANCSA) Native Corporation policies and have determined that this
                rule may have substantial direct effect on federally recognized Indian
                tribes. The NPS invited Alaska Native tribes and corporations to
                consult on the proposed rule and has consulted with those tribes and
                corporations that have requested consultation.
                Paperwork Reduction Act
                 This rule does not contain information collection requirements, and
                a submission to the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork
                Reduction Act is not required. The NPS may not conduct or sponsor and
                you are not required to respond to a collection of information unless
                it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
                National Environmental Policy Act
                 This rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly
                affecting the quality of the human environment. The NPS prepared the EA
                and determined that a detailed statement under the National
                Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) is not required because the NPS
                reached the FONSI. The EA and FONSI are available online at http://parkplanning.nps.gov/akro.
                Effects on the Energy Supply (Executive Order 13211)
                 This rule is not a significant energy action under the definition
                in Executive Order 13211. A Statement of Energy Effects in not
                required.
                List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 13
                 Alaska, National parks, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
                 In consideration of the foregoing, the National Park Service amends
                36 CFR part 13 as set forth below:
                PART 13--NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM UNITS IN ALASKA
                0
                1. The authority citation for part 13 continues to read as follows:
                [[Page 35191]]
                 Authority: 16 U.S.C. 3124; 54 U.S.C. 100101, 100751, 320102;
                Sec. 13.1204 also issued under Sec. 1035, Pub. L. 104-333, 110 Stat.
                4240.
                Sec. 13.1 [Amended]
                0
                2. In Sec. 13.1 remove the definitions of ``Big game'', ``Cub bear'',
                ``Fur animal'', and ``Furbearer''.
                Sec. 13.42 [Amended]
                0
                3. In Sec. 13.42, remove and reserve paragraphs (f) and (g).
                George Wallace,
                Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
                [FR Doc. 2020-10877 Filed 6-8-20; 8:45 am]
                 BILLING CODE 4310-EJ-P
                

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT